A cook at the Pittsburgh Steelers team complex is driving around in a red Mercedes convertible thanks to an unexpected and generous deal from the franchise's former secondary coach.

On his final day in Pittsburgh before taking over as defensive coordinator for the Arizona Cardinals, Ray Horton gave his 1999 Mercedes SL500 to cafeteria worker Maurice Matthews.

The cook had always kidded around with Horton, telling him he was coaching his position and asking when he'd be allowed to drive his sports car. Horton would jokingly reply, "you can't afford the gas in it."

But on his final day in Pittsburgh, Horton approached Matthews to say goodbye and asked if he could borrow whatever money he had in his pocket. When Matthews handed over a twenty, Horton said "sold for $20!" and handed him the keys to his car.

IRS or not... many states have laws that require sales tax on the actual value of the vehicle if the sales price is below that. So if the Blue Book value of the car is $20,000, 8% sales tax is $1,600. Still a bargin, but much more the $20.

Great story. Hope the cook enjoys his new car. As said before the insurance will be steep or may not depending on his driving record. I’m thinking what the cost of registration and servicing the vehicle.

15
posted on 08/04/2011 10:59:03 AM PDT
by Dawgreg
(Happiness is not having what you want, but wanting what you have.)

Not to the IRS. It’s a gift. Gift taxes are the responsibility of the giver, so the cafe worker doesn’t need to worry. The annual exclusion is 13k per person or so, if the coach is married, there is no tax issue. Then there’s the lifetime gift exclusion, so you really don’t have gift tax issues until the lifetime exclusion is used up, but he may need to file a gift tax return.

It’s all tied in with the death tax too. It’s another reason to get rid of the income and death tax altogether.

Yup, and I'll tell you more: Know why he lived in el cheapo, run-down Rio Linda? Cuz at the time he couldn't AFFORD to live in any other part of Sacramento..!

Think about that --I mean...this is a guy who came from a family of lawyer after lawyer. That's how "real" he was. And is. And he didn't complain.

When he finally made a little extra money, he drove up to Lake Tahoe (about 2 hours away) in a beat-up, smoking Monte Carlo, and had to pull over about 5 times on those mountain roads, cuz his beater boat was over-heating. Keeping it real? Yup....

One time some local radio liberal exec big-shot invited Rush to dinner with some important people. Rush was still trying to make it, and unassumingly went to the dinner. But they were all super nice to him, right? NOPE: the guy devoted the entire dinner to telling Rush --this guy's dinner guest-- how STUPID he was, and how his show (which was booming) would never make it. He literally pushed everything aside and read Rush the riot act the whole time, with all these rich libs looking on, giggling.

And Rush just showed his class, and took it unflinchingly, like a good guest, and didn't make a scene.

And they drove from hundreds of miles from around Sacramento, to peak over the fence behind the dome theaters, just to see that fat guy walking into work for 5 seconds.

The next day he drove Horton to the airport and received all the paperwork to take ownership of the car. With 64,000 miles on it, Matthews ended up paying $20 for a vehicle that carries a Kelly Blue Book value of $17,735.

22
posted on 08/04/2011 11:48:32 AM PDT
by submarinerswife
(Insanity is doing the same thing over and over, while expecting different results~Einstein)

The IRS cannot do anything about it. He didn’t get the car for nothing, he paid 20 bucks for it. If he sells it for more than 20, then he has to declare the profit, other than that he is within the law, which is why the guy “sold” him the car instead of giving it to him, which would have cost him plenty in taxes.

You’re a little off. This has nothing to do with the giver’s eventual estate taxes.

The state may want to collect sales tax on the actual value.

The IRS (and state) may treat the transfer in excess of payment as imputed income, since they have effectively an employer-employee relationship. The recipient has a good argument that this has nothing to do with compensation for work, or an employment bonus.

The story is a beautiful one. The comments about the taxes is a reflection on our tax system that is 1) confiscatory 2) arbitrary/ open to interpretation 3) unfair in any sense of the word. It is amazing that generosity would be taxed. But I believe this is no less different than the estate tax where the generosity to relatives is taxed. Render unto Ceaser...

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.